Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11610 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.1083 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.8502 of 2021
1.Thirumalai
2.Thenmalai
3.Sankari
..Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants
Vs
Prem Soukan ..Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.04.2021 made in
I.A.No.83 of 2021 in O.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the Additional
District Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Narayanan
For Respondent .. No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The defendants in O.S.No.24 of 2014 now pending on the file of
the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, are the revision
petitioners herein. They had filed I.A.No.83 of 2021 while the trial was
pending under Order XII Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code read with 151
Civil Procedure Code, seeking production of a document namely, income
tax return of the respondent / plaintiff for the assessment year of 2012 –
2013. The suit had been filed for specific performance and it is claimed
that the said suit is based on a document which cannot be termed as a
genuine document. The nature of the document is an issue that has to be
decided during the course of trial by the Trial Judge.
2.The present petitioners had filed I.A.No.83 of 2021 seeking a
direction against the respondent / plaintiff to produce the income tax
return for the assessment year 2012 – 2013. It had been stated that
instead of producing the said income tax return, the respondent / plaintiff
produced a certificate from a Chartered Accountant with respect to the
assessment year 2014 – 2015 which is not actually the relevant
assessment year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3.Be that as it may, if the said document which is now sought to be
produced is deemed to be relevant and is not produced by the respondent
/ plaintiff, though it is claimed that it is is in their possession, then the
learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in the course of the
judgment may if there is necessary evidence regarding the same, draw
necessary adverse inference as stated under Section 114(g) of the Indian
Evidence Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondent / plaintiff is in possession of the said document and
has deliberately not produced the same. Let the learned Additional
District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, analyze the evidence on this particular
aspect and thereafter, if circumstances warrant, and evidence is available,
draw necessary inference during the course of deciding the main issues in
the case.
4.With the said observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Let the parties go back and continue with the trial
process. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
14.06.2021 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
To The Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai.
C.R.P. (PD) No.1083 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.8502 of 2021
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!